Where do you think we came from? - Page 58

First Previous

Page

114

Next Last

Frequent Posters

-Aarya-

@-Aarya-

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Haha, and I strongly believe that if a person hasn't reasoned their way into a position, it's unlikely that they can be reasoned out of it. To an endless debate :D

Quote

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: -Aarya-

Haha, and I strongly believe that if a person hasn't reasoned their way into a position, it's unlikely that they can be reasoned out of it. To an endless debate :D

Blimey !! You think exactly like me ...😆 ...But when most things are likely to end ..A few such things that have No End should entice us ...Like um ..LOVE ? ...😆 ..Godly LOVE I mean...😆...(I bet The God loves all of us ..Even Atheists like Freethinka) ..And The God himself. ? ..And even this debate that won't end even when all of us are gone ...😆

Vintu ...😛

Quote

Believe

@-Believe-

IF-Stunnerz

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112
I thought Vintu was Jesus 2.0 ❓

Seems some patch file missing😛

Remember Jesus died for our sins, so if you aren't sinning, he died in vain.😛

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

What makes you doubt the proof?

Godel's incompleteness theorems. He showed that any formal system that can support number theory and elementary logic has at least one undecidable statement. Even if the statement is true, the system can't prove it. Which means, there will always be more propositions that are true that we cannot prove. Also, no system is self sufficient that it can explain itself. An explanation for a system has to come from outside the system.

I would love to come up with some really good examples that anyone can understand but off the top of my head, I am unable to do so. I will have to give it some good thought. In the meantime, please read up on undecidability, Church-Turing thesis and relates topics when you have the time.

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@BirdieNumNum

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

i think a lot of this discussion is flawed. In my opinion, we might be suffering from the delusion that the "reality" we experience, the "reality" we perceive, is the absolute true reality, the way things really are. Not so i believe. And that goes for space, time, matter, energy, everything we sense and create in our minds. It's spacetime continuum for starters, not space and not time in the euclidean sense we imagine in our minds, and the implications are huge. We talk of things like wave-particle duality, but if we look at it from light's perspective, it is neither. In our minds and in our science, there is a paradox. As far as light is concerned, there is however no paradox. My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...

Quote

Vintage.Wine

@Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i think a lot of this discussion is flawed. In my opinion, we might be suffering from the delusion that the "reality" we experience, the "reality" we perceive, is the absolute true reality, the way things really are. Not so i believe. And that goes for space, time, matter, energy, everything we sense and create in our minds. It's spacetime continuum for starters, not space and not time in the euclidean sense we imagine in our minds, and the implications are huge. We talk of things like wave-particle duality, but if we look at it from light's perspective, it is neither. In our minds and in our science, there is a paradox. As far as light is concerned, there is however no paradox. My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...

Yes ..Yes. Birdie .. ..A lot of twisting and turning was needed ..Even the sham, rhetorical theories were made the part of the discussion ...Cause I have seriously started believing that FREE has been possesed by some Evil Atheist Spirit ...😆

Light for us is Particles moving at certain speed, having frequency and wavelength ..But that's a sketchy interpretetion ...For me The Light of Truth is more important ..Which FREE is failing to see each day ...This is why I was insisting that we include the Conciousness as the part of totality. As in the Universe's Wavefunction ..so that we could unveil the mystery behind many probabilities ... ...But No hell...😆 .So much of trying and still no avail ...😆

Vintu ...😛

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

If virtual particles get acceptance why not frogs and their hearing abilities 😆 Lets see...😛

A man was proudly telling his friend that his son would grow up into a great scientist. When asked how he could be so sure he replied that at this young age his son had already discovered that a frog hears with its legs. The friend was surprised and asked what led to that discovery. The father explained -

My son was investigating the jumping ability of frogs. He put a frog down, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped 15 feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with four legs jumps 15 feet."

He then cut off one of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped ten feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with three legs jumps ten feet."

He then cut off another of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped five feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with two legs jumps five feet."

He then cut off another of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped two feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with one leg jumps two feet."

He then cut off the last of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" but the frog didn't jump. He said "jump, frog, jump" again, but the frog still didn't jump. So he wrote in his note book "frog with no legs can't hear."

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum
My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...

Suppose we do know the unknowable. What would it mean? Is it just one word (say "light") getting translated into other words ("something that makes vision possible", "the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors", "electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles per second")

I always wondered what does it actually mean to "know" something. it looks like all we are doing in the process of knowing is either adding or subtracting words. Munching on a word salad, if you will.

Quote

BirdieNumNum

@BirdieNumNum

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Vintage.Wine

Yes ..Yes. Birdie .. ..A lot of twisting and turning was needed ..Even the sham, rhetorical theories were made the part of the discussion ...Cause I have seriously started believing that FREE has been possesed by some Evil Atheist Spirit ...😆

Light for us is Particles moving at certain speed, having frequency and wavelength ..But that's a sketchy interpretetion ...For me The Light of Truth is more important ..Which FREE is failing to see each day ...This is why I was insisting that we include the Conciousness as the part of totality. As in the Universe's Wavefunction ..so that we could unveil the mystery behind many probabilities ... ...But No hell...😆 .So much of trying and still no avail ...😆

Vintu ...😛

as humans, we're pretty much wired the same way. We look at the outside world and we can "agree" on what we are seeing. That makes us think that what we're seeing is the only reality or the absolute reality. But we're programmed pretty much the same as the other person, so we're bound to process external data the same way. If you take other species, their "perception" of the world is likely different. In that sense, our minds are not just information processors, they are also "reality" generators. So i think. The materiality we experience, the solidness we feel etc in my opinion are images created in our mind. We are somewhere interpreting reality and in many ways our perceptions are totally inconsistent with other facts. Our minds might be like the monitor that takes data in a certain code (digital bits) and puts it up as an image...In that sense, even matter is likely something we've created in the mind...

Quote

_Angie_

@_Angie_

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 11 years ago

I ve been wondering about that. If something is unknowable how would one know when one does find it ? Is it necessary for one to have a preconceived idea about something n order to recognise it when one finds it ? What if it does not fall in with what one has believed until then? Would one tend to dismiss it as inexplicable? Or would there be some sort of a Eureka moment when one just realises that thats it!

Quote

1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 ... 114